In This Issue:

- News From the Bench -

.. The en banc Court Speaks On Divided Infringement, But Not With One Voice.

.. Can Recent Conflicting Decision On The Patent Eligibility of Business Methods Be Reconciled?

.. Two More Post-Therasense Cases on Alleged Inequitable Conduct, Two More Nails in the Coffin.

.. Patentee Seeking Broadening Reissue Bitten By the Recapture Doctrine.

.. If It Doesn’t Compute, You Must Refute. How Not to Calculate Infringement Damages.

- PATENT Notes In This Issue -

.. U.S. Patent Practice: Potential Subject Matter Limits on the Grace Period in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) of the AIA.

.. Foreign Patent Practice: PCT Changes Resulting From the AIA.

.. Clean-Tech Bulletin Recent Clean-Energy Patents.

.. K&S IP Highlights:

.. People in the News: Boyd Cloern, Bill Abrams, Katie McCarthy.

.. Trial News: Google v. Oracle.

.. Quiz - Identify the IP Case in Rap Disguise.

Excerpt from The en banc Court Speaks On Divided Infringement, But Not With One Voice.

Prior to the recent en banc decision on divided infringement of method claims, the court had adopted a “single-entity rule,” under which no liability for direct infringement would be found unless a single actor performed all steps of a method claim or multiple participants performed the steps as part of a contract or agency relationship that is directed or controlled by a single “mastermind.” As a result of the rule, induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) required a predicate act of direct infringement by a single entity, in this case, two or more parties operating under some type of a formal arrangement.